[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC V4 0/5] kvm : Paravirt-spinlock support for KVM guests



On 01/17/2012 11:09 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:

On 17.01.2012, at 18:27, Raghavendra K T wrote:

On 01/17/2012 12:12 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:

On 16.01.2012, at 19:38, Raghavendra K T wrote:

On 01/16/2012 07:53 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:

On 16.01.2012, at 15:20, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:

* Alexander Graf<agraf@xxxxxxx>    [2012-01-16 04:57:45]:

Speaking of which - have you benchmarked performance degradation of pv ticket 
locks on bare metal?

You mean, run kernel on bare metal with CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS
enabled and compare how it performs with CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS disabled for
some workload(s)?

Yup


In some sense, the 1x overcommitcase results posted does measure the overhead
of (pv-)spinlocks no? We don't see any overhead in that case for atleast
kernbench ..

Result for Non PLE machine :
============================

[snip]

Kernbench:
               BASE                    BASE+patch

What is BASE really? Is BASE already with the PV spinlocks enabled? I'm having 
a hard time understanding which tree you're working against, since the 
prerequisites aren't upstream yet.


Alex

Sorry for confusion, I think I was little imprecise on the BASE.

The BASE is pre 3.2.0 + Jeremy's following patches:
xadd (https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/10/4/328)
x86/ticketlocklock  (https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/10/12/496).
So this would have ticketlock cleanups from Jeremy and
CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS=y

BASE+patch = pre 3.2.0 + Jeremy's above patches + above V5 PV spinlock
series and CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS=y

In both the cases  CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS=y.

So let,
A. pre-3.2.0 with CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS = n
B. pre-3.2.0 + Jeremy's above patches with CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS = n
C. pre-3.2.0 + Jeremy's above patches with CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS = y
D. pre-3.2.0 + Jeremy's above patches + V5 patches with 
CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS = n
E. pre-3.2.0 + Jeremy's above patches + V5 patches with 
CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS = y

is it performance of A vs E ? (currently C vs E)

Since D and E only matter with KVM in use, yes, I'm mostly interested in A, B 
and C :).


Alex


setup :
Native: IBM xSeries with Intel(R) Xeon(R) x5570 2.93GHz CPU with 8 core , 64GB 
RAM, (16 cpu online)

Guest : Single guest with 8 VCPU 4GB Ram.
benchmark : kernbench -f -H -M -o 20

Here is the result :
Native Run
============
case A               case B             %improvement   case C  %improvement
56.1917 (2.57125)    56.035 (2.02439)   0.278867       56.27 (2.40401)   
-0.139344      

This looks a lot like statistical derivation. How often did you execute the 
test case? Did you make sure to have a clean base state every time?

Maybe it'd be a good idea to create a small in-kernel microbenchmark with a 
couple threads that take spinlocks, then do work for a specified number of 
cycles, then release them again and start anew. At the end of it, we can check 
how long the whole thing took for n runs. That would enable us to measure the 
worst case scenario.


It was a quick test. two iteration of kernbench (=6runs) and had ensured cache is cleared.

echo "1" > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
ccache -C. Yes may be I can run test as you mentioned..


Guest Run
============
case A               case B             %improvement   case C  %improvement
166.999 (15.7613)    161.876 (14.4874)  3.06768        161.24 (12.6497)  3.44852

Is this the same machine? Why is the guest 3x slower?
Yes non - ple machine but with all 16 cpus online. 3x slower you meant case A is slower (pre-3.2.0 with CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS = n) ?



Alex


We do not see much overhead in native run with CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS = y





_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel


 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.